Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Unlike T7V I don't have to remind Golgothans to be upstanding individuals.
Official: Golgotha has no specific policy prohibiting cheating. Presumably that would be redundant with the Pax Gaming charter prohibiting cheating.
Still outstanding: Confirmation from Aeternum or Pax Gaming that voting twice is specifically prohibited (after all, the guidance from Lee was interpreted to override other guidance issued in the same breath as the voting-twice prohibition, and there hasn't been a direct clarification yet on the issue; precedent suggests that Pax Gaming and Aeternum would hold the prohibition on voting twice on equal footing with the prohibition on LR1 members voting again.)
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike T7V I don't have to remind Golgothans to be upstanding individuals.Official: Golgotha has no specific policy prohibiting cheating. Presumably that would be redundant with the Pax Gaming charter prohibiting cheating.
Still outstanding: Confirmation from Aeternum or Pax Gaming that voting twice is specifically prohibited (after all, the guidance from Lee was interpreted to override other guidance issued in the same breath as the voting-twice prohibition, and there hasn't been a direct clarification yet on the issue; precedent suggests that Pax Gaming and Aeternum would hold the prohibition on voting twice on equal footing with the prohibition on LR1 members voting again.)
I swear I clicked on the Roseblood Accord thread. When did this become the Aeternum and Golgotha policy thread? I think you're in the wrong place, Decius.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Who were the three votes that you "lost"?2: No one from Aeternum who voted in LR1 voted for LR2. Rule not broken.Again, to be very, very clear. If anyone can find any evidence contrary to that, bring it to our attention immediately. This was never misinterpreted on our part. That has always been crystal clear for us.
I will not allow that accusation to stand uncontested.
Edit: Within 5 minutes of checking our forums, I got these three posts. I can get more. Again, this accusation will not stand:
I know that I am one of them. Uffda. Zeyvian.
Uffda and I are currently on Aeturnums landrush roster. Zeyvian was very temporarily on Golgothas, however he was removed as soon as we saw the mistake (a matter of hours). As far as I am aware, he has not yet applied back into Aeturnums.
There may be more, I am not the best person to ask about rosters. What I know for certain that is if there are more, they are where their LR1 vote determines that they should be. I can tap the officer of Golgotha that knows best if you want an exact list.
I'm not really interested in an exact list; I'm more trying to coax out of you that the votes that you 'lost' were members that never voted for Golgotha (Or at worse, voted and realized their error quickly and without prompting, which amounts to the same thing).
Because I think that is the exact cause of miscommunication; I always parsed "lost" as "members of Golgotha who were never allowed to vote for Golgotha" and not "reduction in the number of votes shown from a prior high".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I joined T7V because of the focus on letting players be, when the few other organizations tended towards a less democratic leadership structure and a focus on the membership working for the good of the whole. When I first saw the Roseblood Accord (one of the first things I saw when I came back to the forum), I was wholly against it. I did some research before posting my concerns too loudly and I was satisfied with the result:
It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is simply a bunch of individual member groups that hope to foster a certain style of play in their areas. They believe that this style of play is important to the enjoyment of their membership, and will help other members have fun. I don't think that precludes warring on each other, or necessitates common defense.
The OP for this Accord states: "The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members." In this very thread much has been made of that so-called "mutual success" clause which makes up the tail end of the sentence, but I'm not clear on what exactly was meant by it. I was under the impression that it would be a meta-gamed alliance where you wouldn't attack each other at the very least, because that would not be working for mutual success. Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?
Just curious and for clarification; sorry if you already detailed this to someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he was responding to what someone from TEO said in this thread, so he responded in this thread.
Yeah, I thought it would be obvious when I quoted the post I was replying to.
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?
First of all, the context of this is that it was well before Ryan's clarification that Lee's comment on another topic entirely was not to be read as a release from the request to vote for the Guild you're going to play with.
Ryan placed three restrictions on us:
1. If you, as a Guild, won a Settlement in LR1, don't create a second entry for LR2;
2. If you, as a Player, voted for a Guild that won a Settlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2; and
3. If you, as a Player, intend to play as part of a Guild that won a Setttlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2.
As I read Pax Morbis's statement:
1. They had 5 votes that rightly belong to Pax Aeternum.
2. Three of those votes are votes from Pax Golgotha members who voted for Pax Aeternum in LR1 and were now going to move those votes back to Pax Aeternum, to be in compliance with Request #2.
3. Leaving a net of 2 votes that would go away from Pax Golgotha if Ryan clarified that he actually meant Request #3.
If you have a compelling alternate explanation, I'm listening. But I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And I will add that this kind of nit-picking about whether so-and-so is actually in compliance with the rules is why it's such a bad idea not to have a policy to scrupulously abide by the requests of the developers to the extent that you're above reproach.
All of this would have been avoided if Pax Gaming had made the decision to put all their votes to Pax Aeternum, and focus on encouraging new players to come to PFO, rather than looking for an excuse to run a second entry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I joined T7V because of the focus on letting players be, when the few other organizations tended towards a less democratic leadership structure and a focus on the membership working for the good of the whole. When I first saw the Roseblood Accord (one of the first things I saw when I came back to the forum), I was wholly against it. I did some research before posting my concerns too loudly and I was satisfied with the result:
It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is simply a bunch of individual member groups that hope to foster a certain style of play in their areas. They believe that this style of play is important to the enjoyment of their membership, and will help other members have fun. I don't think that precludes warring on each other, or necessitates common defense.
The OP for this Accord states: "The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members." In this very thread much has been made of that so-called "mutual success" clause which makes up the tail end of the sentence, but I'm not clear on what exactly was meant by it. I was under the impression that it would be a meta-gamed alliance where you wouldn't attack each other at the very least, because that would not be working for mutual success. Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?
Just curious and for clarification; sorry if you already detailed this to someone else.
KotC has a strict non-aggression policy, but I could see member groups going to war with each other be it for practice or for fun. What they shouldn't do, in my opinion, is go burning investments to the ground or capture cities. Or if they do capture a city return it and say good game.
I would expect that the terms of said war would be negotiated out first so that everyone understood the rules they were fighting under.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think he was responding to what someone from TEO said in this thread, so he responded in this thread.Yeah, I thought it would be obvious when I quoted the post I was replying to.
We have audited our votes. We are gaining 5 votes from Aeturnum. We are losing 3 votes from Golgotha because they are locked into Aeturnum. There is a difference of 2 votes. Does anyone think that 2 votes is making us "no longer [sic] need to worry about their own land rush"?First of all, the context of this is that it was well before Ryan's clarification that Lee's comment on another topic entirely was not to be read as a release from the request to vote for the Guild you're going to play with.
Ryan placed three restrictions on us:
1. If you, as a Guild, won a Settlement in LR1, don't create a second entry for LR2;
2. If you, as a Player, voted for a Guild that won a Settlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2; and
3. If you, as a Player, intend to play as part of a Guild that won a Setttlement in LR1, don't vote for a different Guild in LR2.As I read Pax Morbis's statement:
1. They had 5 votes that rightly belong to Pax Aeternum.
2. Three of those votes are votes from Pax Golgotha members who voted for Pax Aeternum in LR1 and were now going to move those votes back to Pax Aeternum, to be in compliance with Request #2.
3. Leaving a net of 2 votes that would go away from Pax Golgotha if Ryan clarified that he actually meant Request #3.If you have a compelling alternate explanation, I'm listening. But I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And I will add that this kind of nit-picking about whether so-and-so is actually in compliance with the rules is why it's such a bad idea not to have a policy to scrupulously abide by the requests of...
The explanation was already given by one of your allies. Three members of Gologtha voted for Aeturnum in LR1. They did not vote for Golgotha in LR2, effectively costing them 3 votes because they were locked in for Aeturnum.
Quit looking for excuses to burn down Pax. Its unbecoming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I joined T7V because of the focus on letting players be, when the few other organizations tended towards a less democratic leadership structure and a focus on the membership working for the good of the whole. When I first saw the Roseblood Accord (one of the first things I saw when I came back to the forum), I was wholly against it. I did some research before posting my concerns too loudly and I was satisfied with the result:
It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is simply a bunch of individual member groups that hope to foster a certain style of play in their areas. They believe that this style of play is important to the enjoyment of their membership, and will help other members have fun. I don't think that precludes warring on each other, or necessitates common defense.
The OP for this Accord states: "The Roseblood Accord is a group of sovereign player organizations united not under central authority, but in our agreement to promote by example the goals of positive gameplay and the mutual success of its members." In this very thread much has been made of that so-called "mutual success" clause which makes up the tail end of the sentence, but I'm not clear on what exactly was meant by it. I was under the impression that it would be a meta-gamed alliance where you wouldn't attack each other at the very least, because that would not be working for mutual success. Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?
Just curious and for clarification; sorry if you already detailed this to someone else.
No worries :)
I think it's safe to say most of us won't be attacking anyone without a good reason. For some, that "good reason" might simply be a contract, for others it might take an existential struggle.
The key fact is that there is no enforcement mechanism, no terms, clauses, stipulations, or paragraph 13.1 sub-paragraph B item 7 specifications that require any member to do anything they do not believe is in their best interest. There is no High Council that sits in judgment of whether any Roseblood Accord Member is "in compliance".
We're generally friendly, good-natured people who want PFO to be fun, with lots of PvP but little meaningless PvP. I imagine a lot of us empathize with these concerns:
Some players are very concerned that this kind of system leads inexorably to what we call a "murder simulator" - a game that degenerates into endless ganking, griefing, and harassment that ruins the experience for everyone.
Goblinworks is committed to the idea that we can re-introduce PvP as a meaningful part of the ways players interact without allowing the game to degenerate in that fashion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hello.
My name is Joachim and I'm a lurker and backer of PFO.
I don't visit often and my time at the comp in general is limited these days. I have been a part of Pax a year or so at least now.
I would like to point one little thing out to the people having this insanely overblown discussion:
I am an individual that is not in any way remotely controlled by Pax.
When I got the e-mail from Paizo about the Land Grab 2nd round I could hardly remember if I even voted in the first one or not. Thus I went into the site and set my account up (without going to the Pax forums to ask permission or anything first, or reading any rules regarding the voting set by Ryan or Goblinworks - shock!).
I placed my vote on Aeternum since I plan on playing a char that belongs there (alignment-wise).
If I had had the idea to support another guild (Golgotha) that I knew Aeternum would ally with (since I knew Aeternum already had won a spot) there would not have been a single thing Pax could have done about it.
I would have regretted it later, when I read the things that I then found and the discussion I am now seeing, but it would still not have been intentional cheating by Pax.
Try approaching this subject as adults and not squabbling teens (unless you are one...and I remember a thread that proved they are sorely outnumbered on this forum).
Disclaimer:
We are all human beings. Human beings make mistakes, and when we make them...they are usually our own fault. I request that people (that I respected on these forums - on both sides) reconsider this ludicrous discussion, built on misconceptions and falseties, and grow up.
- The 5 cents of a innocent bystander that feels less and less inclined to take part in these forums these days -
Massive Quote wall...
I feel like I need to start quoting myself.
Nihimon is on a petty crusade against Pax.
I'm just having fun watching himself dig his self righteous hole as deep as it goes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was looking for any Roseblood accord news but all I heard was the teacher from Charlie Brown.
To answer this though:
Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?
I doubt our settlement would be going to war with any of the existing Roseblood Accord members, but this isn't because of a peace treaty. If UNC had joined the Roseblood Accord I could easily see them going to war with us, but if they did then being part of the accord I'd assume they'd treat our players with respect. (Not sure what that involves in PFO, but essentially no spawn camping, or similar behavior)
Also if I wouldn't expect any of the Roseblood Accord members to come to our aid if we went to war, or even were attacked. That would be up to the individual settlements/players, and certainly isn't part of the accord.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?
Just curious and for clarification; sorry if you already detailed this to someone else.
@Shane Only if it is mutually beneficial. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Massive Quote wall...I feel like I need to start quoting myself.
Nihimon is on a petty crusade against Pax.
I'm just having fun watching himself dig his self righteous hole as deep as it goes.
Nihimon is doing what he feels is his duty as a member of this community to "crusade" not against anything rather for the stated intents of the devs. I think Nihimon feels the "crusade" itself is part of the stated intent of the devs...specifically that the community police itself.
This is obvious.
Stating otherwise, that Nihimon is "attacking" anyone for any other reason, purpose, or goal, is unreasonable if you have spent any time at all with Nihimon.
I bet that if anyone wanted to test my assertion by spending some time with Nihimon, that could probably be arranged in TS.
That said, I wish this had not occurred in a RA thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Substantiate your claim, or retract it.
I've stated my understanding, and indicated I'm listening. If you can provide a compelling alternate explanation, I'll happily post a full public retraction - without repeating the accusation - in a new thread for maximum exposure. But again, understand, I'm not likely to be giving you the "benefit of the doubt". I find my reading compelling and don't understand why the previously offered explanation would result in a "difference of 2 votes".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Substantiate your claim, or retract it.I've stated my understanding, and indicated I'm listening. If you can provide a compelling alternate explanation, I'll happily post a full public retraction - without repeating the accusation - in a new thread for maximum exposure. But again, understand, I'm not likely to be giving you the "benefit of the doubt". I find my reading compelling and don't understand why the previously offered explanation would result in a "difference of 2 votes".
Have you read my posts?
Massive Quote wall...I feel like I need to start quoting myself.
Nihimon is on a petty crusade against Pax.
I'm just having fun watching himself dig his self righteous hole as deep as it goes.
Nihimon is doing what he feels is his duty as a member of this community to "crusade" not against anything rather for the stated intents of the devs. I think Nihimon feels the "crusade" itself is part of the stated intent of the devs...specifically that the community police itself.
This is obvious.
Stating otherwise, that Nihimon is "attacking" anyone for any other reason, purpose, or goal, is unreasonable if you have spent any time at all with Nihimon.
I bet that if anyone wanted to test my assertion by spending some time with Nihimon, that could probably be arranged in TS.
That said, I wish this had not occurred in a RA thread.
Substantiate your claims, or retract it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what you are saying is that you don't have any proof. That your entire basis of claiming that we abused LR1 votes is a misunderstanding of something that quite a few other people got just fine?
So you just accused us of cheating on nothing? You are shifting the burden of proof that we are cheaters onto us?
No. We will not accept that.
Substantiate your claims, or retract it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Substantiate your claims, or retract it.Massive Quote wall...I feel like I need to start quoting myself.
Nihimon is on a petty crusade against Pax.
I'm just having fun watching himself dig his self righteous hole as deep as it goes.
Nihimon is doing what he feels is his duty as a member of this community to "crusade" not against anything rather for the stated intents of the devs. I think Nihimon feels the "crusade" itself is part of the stated intent of the devs...specifically that the community police itself.
This is obvious.
Stating otherwise, that Nihimon is "attacking" anyone for any other reason, purpose, or goal, is unreasonable if you have spent any time at all with Nihimon.
I bet that if anyone wanted to test my assertion by spending some time with Nihimon, that could probably be arranged in TS.
That said, I wish this had not occurred in a RA thread.
*laugh*...I'm busted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, I can see how that quote from Morbis could be misunderstood.
Nihimon, I was under the impression that Morbis was saying "Golgotha has lost 3 votes from Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in Land Rush 1" rather than "Golgotha is losing 3 votes now as we move the votes rightfully to Aeternum"
Judging from their recent statements, that is indeed what they meant =)
EDIT: And as the only evidence of wrongdoing is a quote that could be understood either way... I'm not sure there's enough to go on for a public accusation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for any Roseblood accord news but all I heard was the teacher from Charlie Brown.
To answer this though:
Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?I doubt our settlement would be going to war with any of the existing Roseblood Accord members, but this isn't because of a peace treaty. If UNC had joined the Roseblood Accord I could easily see them going to war with us, but if they did then being part of the accord I'd assume they'd treat our players with respect. (Not sure what that involves in PFO, but essentially no spawn camping, or similar behavior)
Also if I wouldn't expect any of the Roseblood Accord members to come to our aid if we went to war, or even were attacked. That would be up to the individual settlements/players, and certainly isn't part of the accord.
I'm actually not taking offense to this, but I do want to set your perception straight or dispel your assumption.
If the UNC was accepted to join the accord, all accord members would have been set at blue. We may be bandits and want to rob everything that walks or crawls, but... our loyalty is unquestionable, and the level that we protect our own is really quite scary.
The Accord management, and yes you have one, made a big mistake in not accepting our offer. This is not to say that you will specifically suffer from that decision, but you certainly gained nothing from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what you are saying is that you don't have any proof. That your entire basis of claiming that we abused LR1 votes is a misunderstanding of something that quite a few other people got just fine?
So you just accused us of cheating on nothing? You are shifting the burden of proof that we are cheaters onto us?
No. We will not accept that.
Substantiate your claims, or retract it.
Are you going to offer an alternate explanation? I'd like to understand it in your own words, since you're the one who made the original post.
So if one member of the accord decides another settlement has 'cheated' and not engaged in positive gameplay, would they ask the other members to engage them in war or take sanctions against them?The RA doesn't have any way of issuing a wardec.
There is no 'government' of the RA. The RA exists only insomuch as the members/leaders continue to talk to eachother on teamspeak.
We don't even have an 'Emprah!'
Members are not required to come to eachother's aid. Members are not required not to war with eachother (as far as I know, at least).
In my estimation, having never listened in on the TS chats or spoken to anybody in the RA, the only requirements are that members engage in PvP and other behaviors that are regarded as 'positive gameplay,' the general definition of which we share, and to help other members realize this goal.
That's not to say that our shared goals haven't formed strong bonds of friendship. Each individual guild will decide for themselves which other individual guilds they will support in wartime and under what circumstances.
I don't see how that question makes any sense based on what you quoted from me. Nobody has any control over what Roseblood Accord members do. There is no governing body.
Also, I haven't seen any evidence that any Roseblood Accord member group believes that theirs is the only valid opinion of what 'positive gameplay' is; they simply share the same general idea of what it means.
Again, if a group within the Roseblood Accord wants to go to war, it's up to other individual groups to decide if they will join them. Is there something ambiguous about this that I can clarify?
Fair enough. I had assumed since the leaders talked to one another, options might be discussed and a decision might be made about doing something against groups that do not abide by positive gameplay. It would seem that is not the case.
What if members of the accord do not abide by positive gameplay. Like labeling other groups cheaters without a basis in fact for example?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was looking for any Roseblood accord news but all I heard was the teacher from Charlie Brown.
To answer this though:
Of course I'm not the most knowledgeable on Accord matters, but I would like to ask one of the bigger players in the Accord whether you will be attacking each other, or whether "mutual success" indicates a peace treaty?I doubt our settlement would be going to war with any of the existing Roseblood Accord members, but this isn't because of a peace treaty. If UNC had joined the Roseblood Accord I could easily see them going to war with us, but if they did then being part of the accord I'd assume they'd treat our players with respect. (Not sure what that involves in PFO, but essentially no spawn camping, or similar behavior)
Also if I wouldn't expect any of the Roseblood Accord members to come to our aid if we went to war, or even were attacked. That would be up to the individual settlements/players, and certainly isn't part of the accord.
I'm actually not taking offense to this, but I do want to set your perception straight or dispel your assumption.
If the UNC was accepted to join the accord, all accord members would have been set at blue. We may be bandits and want to rob everything that walks or crawls, but... our loyalty is unquestionable, and the level that we protect our own is really quite scary.
The Accord management, and yes you have one, made a big mistake in not accepting our offer. This is not to say that you will specifically suffer from that decision, but you certainly gained nothing from it.
I understand the sentiment. Loyalty is an admirable quality (I by the way, simply listed our companies not for interest in war but because you were the most aggressive of companies to apply). It should be noted though that we never viewed this as an alliance to begin with, just a promise to be "good to each other" and treat our fellow players with respect. We'll treat you with respect too, until such time as you might decide to stomp on or take advantage of that respect. (Not an implication)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Massive Quote wall...I feel like I need to start quoting myself.
Nihimon is on a petty crusade against Pax.
I'm just having fun watching himself dig his self righteous hole as deep as it goes.
Nihimon is doing what he feels is his duty as a member of this community to "crusade" not against anything rather for the stated intents of the devs. I think Nihimon feels the "crusade" itself is part of the stated intent of the devs...specifically that the community police itself.
This is obvious.
I would have agreed that his intentions were obvious right up until the point when he started beating the "Pax is one guild" horse again after Golgotha had rectified the irregular votes. If that were not bad enough I would say that the fact that he moved all the b&%!**&% into this thread after the other one was locked moves this beyond community anything and into "crusade" territory.
As far as I am concerned he has lost the ability to say he speaks for the standards of the community, as opposed to just being another ego knocking around these boards while we all wait for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Though I'm not myself directly involved in the debate, I apologize on behalf of the greater Paizo community to the Accord members (as well as non-Accord members interested in it) who don't care about the petty squabble ensuing in your unrelated thread. 'Tis a sad turn of events our boards have taken. :'(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you read my posts?Yes, as I said, I don't see how that explanation results in a "difference of 2 votes".
Because at the time they had 5 members of Aeturnum who hadn't voted in LR1 vote for Golgotha in LR2.
5-3=2.
This would be obvious if you were willing to consider that Pax is *not* the boogeyman.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have you read my posts?Yes, as I said, I don't see how that explanation results in a "difference of 2 votes".Because at the time they had 5 members of Aeturnum who hadn't voted in LR1 vote for Golgotha in LR2.
5-3=2.
I'm having difficulty understanding how losing 5 votes to Aeternum, when they're already down 3 votes results in a "difference of 2". I'd like that explained before I decide whether or not to post a retraction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having difficulty understanding how losing 5 votes to Aeternum, when they're already down 3 votes results in a "difference of 2". I'd like that explained before I decide whether or not to post a retraction.Have you read my posts?Yes, as I said, I don't see how that explanation results in a "difference of 2 votes".Because at the time they had 5 members of Aeturnum who hadn't voted in LR1 vote for Golgotha in LR2.
5-3=2.
Because at that time they hadn't shifted the votes back, I believe. That was before the clarification on moving votes around.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm having difficulty understanding how losing 5 votes to Aeternum, when they're already down 3 votes results in a "difference of 2". I'd like that explained before I decide whether or not to post a retraction.Have you read my posts?Yes, as I said, I don't see how that explanation results in a "difference of 2 votes".Because at the time they had 5 members of Aeturnum who hadn't voted in LR1 vote for Golgotha in LR2.
5-3=2.
+5 (from cheating) -3 (from not cheating) results in a +2 (numbers on the poll compared to their rosters)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(numbers on the poll compared to their rosters)
So people who don't belong to any guild and don't want to belong to one are not allowed to cast our votes for other settlements? I thought that was specifically what we are supposed to do if we hope to make our home in a settlement, even if we aren't part of the guild (or interested in being so) that is sponsoring in the landrush?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(numbers on the poll compared to their rosters)So people who don't belong to any guild and don't want to belong to one are not allowed to cast our votes for other settlements? I thought that was specifically what we are supposed to do if hope to make our home in a settlement, even if we aren't part of the guild that is sponsoring in the landrush?
It's perfectly OK, though there were some special rules set up for the "big 3" who won the original land rush
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would have agreed that his intentions were obvious right up until the point when he started beating the "Pax is one guild" horse again after Golgotha had rectified the irregular votes. If that were not bad enough I would say that the fact that he moved all the b~+##%~@ into this thread after the other one was locked moves this beyond community anything and into "crusade" territory.
As far as I am concerned he has lost the ability to say he speaks for the standards of the community, as opposed to just being another ego knocking around these boards while we all wait for the game.
I wouldn't be surprised if others had changed their mind after Pax's handling of the other, seperate, resolved issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(numbers on the poll compared to their rosters)So people who don't belong to any guild and don't want to belong to one are not allowed to cast our votes for other settlements? I thought that was specifically what we are supposed to do if we hope to make our home in a settlement, even if we aren't part of the guild (or interested in being so) that is sponsoring in the landrush?
Nihimon lists the 3 rules in his post. Pax broke the third, then stopped breaking it. Whether they broke the first depends on if you feel Pax is one guild.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Roseblood dudes. Your fridge is, like, totally out of beer. Also, hope you don't mind, but I invited a couple friends from the rogue threads. And two chicks from the paladin threads. And a guy from that Al Gore thread—I don't know him, but my buddy says he's got weed.
This party is gonna rock. Hey, guys from the Pax thread, mind going over to the store and getting us a keg?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Roseblood dudes. Your fridge is, like, totally out of beer. Also, hope you don't mind, but I invited a couple friends from the rogue threads. And two chicks from the paladin threads. And a guy from that Al Gore thread—I don't know him, but my buddy says he's got weed.
This party is gonna rock. Hey, guys from the Pax thread, mind going over to the store and getting us a keg?
This post brought to you by Warstein Ale! Do you need kegs in a jiffy? Do you have a motley crew of adventurers that need to be drunk? Order a express-delivery of Warstein Ale from Callambea Today! It will be delivered within 24 hours or it's free!
**express charges apply
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every other page of bickering here I remind people there's a similar OP that is purely to remind us to be awesome and playing the game should result in fun.
ROSEBLOOD DUDES
WHERE THE F*@* IS YOUR STASH
THIS PARTY SUCKS
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This post brought to you by Warstein Ale! Do you need kegs in a jiffy? Do you have a motley crew of adventurers that need to be drunk? Order a express-delivery of Warstein Ale from Callambea Today! It will be delivered within 24 hours or it's free!
**express charges apply
I knew it was coming as soon as kegs were mentioned. ^_^